I find it very convincing that we ate alot of bird eggs and insects to get our fats, also bone marrow. I still don't think we ate alot of fish, so it might be really healthy but it isn't in our evolutionary diet, in my opinion.
So, when computing the ideal omega 3:omega 6 ratio we must make a list of all the ideal evolutionary foods we could eat and in what proportions we should eat them.
I used these tables:
http://paleozonenutrition.com/2011/05/1 ... uts-seeds/
http://www.sea-ex.com/fishphotos/bug,.htm
http://www.modderbaard.nl/voeding/eieren/
So fruits tend to have a ratio of 1:2.
Natural fed Chicken Yolks a ratio of 1:1.
Insects a ratio of 1:1.
Land animals (naturally fed ofcourse): 1:2-5
Nuts: 1:5-10 (or more)
Now I think that opening nuts is a very time consuming process and aren't the preferred food. Alot of people also seem to be allergic, so nuts are probably consumed when no other foods were available.
Land animals rot quickly. We only ate leftovers and bonemarrow I think, maybe sometimes the eventual piece of meat. Definately not a big part of our diets.
So the basis of our diets consists of fruits, baby animals, insects and eggs(!) and some nuts.
So the ratio should be very close to 1:1-2. Because of the little fat content in fruits and due to not eating alot of nuts and meat (babies are often protected), the balance is easily tilted in favour of the omega 3 side by the eggs and the insect content of fatty acids. Not exceeding a ratio of 1:1.
So I computed my normal diet (I eat fish once or twice a week and on days I excercise also red meat (2-3 times)):
Omega 3 vs Omega 6:
EVOO 50mL : 400 - 4000
Banana 6: 180 - 300
OJ 2L: 210 - 490
Yolks (6) 250 - 3600
--------------------+
Total: 1040 mg 8390 mg
Ratio: 1:8
When I read about the omega yolks I was convinced and only buy these now:
Omega 3 yolks: 1060 : 1700
Total: 2060 : 6490
So this gives me a score of 1: 3.15
Closer to the ideal 1:2 or even less.
So 2 spoons of fish oil extra a day is enough to get below 1:2. Or 100g of mackerel every 2 days. Or 100-150 g of wild salmon every 2 days. Or 100 g of farmed salmon every day.
I still can't eat alot of salmon, it made me sick a while ago because I ate too much of it. The price of wild alaska salmon (frozen) is around 12 euros/kg. Mackerel is around 10 euros/kg. The prices of other fish are too expensive or they contain too little omega 3. That's why I sometimes eat salmon, sometimes mackerel and on days I can't eat it I have my fish oil which costs 60 cents to 1 euro a day (same price as the fish).
I recommend everybody to eat omega 3 eggs, as their ratio is 1:1-2 instead of 1:15 when you do not eat alot of fish. They also probably have more nutrients because the chickens can eat their natural diet. A good EVOO has a ratio of 1:10. With the denocciolato EVOO I think I'm going a bit below that. But watchout with EVOO and normal egg yolks to not tilt your balance too much to the wrong side.
Omega 3:6 ratio
-
overkees
- Posts: 598
- https://cutt.ly/meble-kuchenne-wroclaw
- Joined: Fri 05 Aug 2011 14:20
Re: Omega ratio
I think fish oil is a bad idea in general. In many studies it has been shown that something like 99% of the fish oils are rancid.
A lot of omega 3 is not so good either as far as I know, so if you want to get close to that ratio of 1:2, it's better to lower the omega 6 in some way I guess. I think it's extremely complicated to compute this 'perfect' ratio though, it likely depends on many more factors and for different foods, people and environments it's a different perfect ratio. I mean it's not as simple as thinking about what we ate during our evolution. I wouldn't really think that much about this ratio, and end up eating fish oil just because of it, especially if it's a similar price.
The omega 3 eggs are made by feeding flax seed (or maybe fish meal) to chicken, I'm not sure whether that's their natural diet.
A lot of omega 3 is not so good either as far as I know, so if you want to get close to that ratio of 1:2, it's better to lower the omega 6 in some way I guess. I think it's extremely complicated to compute this 'perfect' ratio though, it likely depends on many more factors and for different foods, people and environments it's a different perfect ratio. I mean it's not as simple as thinking about what we ate during our evolution. I wouldn't really think that much about this ratio, and end up eating fish oil just because of it, especially if it's a similar price.
The omega 3 eggs are made by feeding flax seed (or maybe fish meal) to chicken, I'm not sure whether that's their natural diet.
Re: Omega ratio
Considering the total amount of omega 6, yes that's an unnatural amount. So maybe you're right, the ratio around 1:2 would be more natural when you eat less fat from vegetable sources in general and therefore lowering your omega 6 intake.
It could be that flaxseed maybe isn't totally natural. BUT, eating only corn and a little bit of grains isn't natural either. It are free range chickens that lay the eggs. It's in fact the same price as the other free range. So, for me, there is no difference in costs. And I did some research on DHA and EPA content in normal and omega 3 eggs, here are the conclusions:
Enriched
ALA: 50 EPA: 2, DHA: 50-150
Normal:
ALA: 16 EPA: 2, DHA: 20
So, yeah the ala is 3 times better and the dha 2.5-7.5 times better. I'm buying those eggs, flaxseed enriched diet or not.
On the rancidity of fish oil: I don't buy capsules but a bottle. The oil tastes fresh, and not fishy at all. I was really surprised because I was given cod liver oil by my mother when I was young and that tastes extremely fishy. On the bottle it states that anti oxidants have been added. Tocopherols (vitamin E activitity). It takes me 2 weeks to empty the bottle (if I also have my fish, otherwise one week). If it starts to taste fishy I will throw it away.
The olive oil is a necessity for my energy levels. I might lower it to 2 tablespoons a day (about 30-40 mL). And add a little bit of sugar. I still think the oil is too unnatural and the diet will be better when consuming as little olive oil as possible. Just like RRM does, for acid reflux. But certainly in the start of this diet it could be of great importance as you are more likely to have troubles with your energy levels.
So, then I will have a total of:
1900:3890 ~ 1:2.15
A much better ratio indeed. So then I could quit with the fish oil. So I will eat the fish oil I have left before it turns rancid
.
On computing the perfect ratio: I still think that it should vary between 1:1 and 1:4. But rather closer to the 1:1 than to the 1:4. As long as you don't exceed 1:4 you're safe. The amount of ALA in the omega 3 eggs seems not harmful to me, considering that our intake of animal foods was scarce rather than abundant, so we would eat more plant based food sources and fruit is in that case prefered as it has the most energy. Also eating more berries than on wai, when there are no other fruits available, and all berries contain a lot of ALA.
And the whole thing with the ratio is that if you have too much omega 6, the enzymes will be more busy with the omega 6 than with the omega 3s. So lowering omega 6 is a smart thing to do. Otherwise you will get inflamed more easily because of the anti inflammatory properties of the omega 3s. It should also be noted that if your total omega 6 amount is lower ALA can be converted into DHA more easily so the need for dietary DHA becomes lower. But if you lower your omega 6, all foods that you eat will automatically have a ratio that comes closer to 1:2 so that isn't an issue.
It could be that flaxseed maybe isn't totally natural. BUT, eating only corn and a little bit of grains isn't natural either. It are free range chickens that lay the eggs. It's in fact the same price as the other free range. So, for me, there is no difference in costs. And I did some research on DHA and EPA content in normal and omega 3 eggs, here are the conclusions:
Enriched
ALA: 50 EPA: 2, DHA: 50-150
Normal:
ALA: 16 EPA: 2, DHA: 20
So, yeah the ala is 3 times better and the dha 2.5-7.5 times better. I'm buying those eggs, flaxseed enriched diet or not.
On the rancidity of fish oil: I don't buy capsules but a bottle. The oil tastes fresh, and not fishy at all. I was really surprised because I was given cod liver oil by my mother when I was young and that tastes extremely fishy. On the bottle it states that anti oxidants have been added. Tocopherols (vitamin E activitity). It takes me 2 weeks to empty the bottle (if I also have my fish, otherwise one week). If it starts to taste fishy I will throw it away.
The olive oil is a necessity for my energy levels. I might lower it to 2 tablespoons a day (about 30-40 mL). And add a little bit of sugar. I still think the oil is too unnatural and the diet will be better when consuming as little olive oil as possible. Just like RRM does, for acid reflux. But certainly in the start of this diet it could be of great importance as you are more likely to have troubles with your energy levels.
So, then I will have a total of:
1900:3890 ~ 1:2.15
A much better ratio indeed. So then I could quit with the fish oil. So I will eat the fish oil I have left before it turns rancid
.On computing the perfect ratio: I still think that it should vary between 1:1 and 1:4. But rather closer to the 1:1 than to the 1:4. As long as you don't exceed 1:4 you're safe. The amount of ALA in the omega 3 eggs seems not harmful to me, considering that our intake of animal foods was scarce rather than abundant, so we would eat more plant based food sources and fruit is in that case prefered as it has the most energy. Also eating more berries than on wai, when there are no other fruits available, and all berries contain a lot of ALA.
And the whole thing with the ratio is that if you have too much omega 6, the enzymes will be more busy with the omega 6 than with the omega 3s. So lowering omega 6 is a smart thing to do. Otherwise you will get inflamed more easily because of the anti inflammatory properties of the omega 3s. It should also be noted that if your total omega 6 amount is lower ALA can be converted into DHA more easily so the need for dietary DHA becomes lower. But if you lower your omega 6, all foods that you eat will automatically have a ratio that comes closer to 1:2 so that isn't an issue.
Re: Omega ratio
Yeah I wasn't saying flaxseed is necessarily bad for chicken, chicken are birds and they are good with seeds as I know.. just that it may not be their most natural diet.
You could substitute some of the olive oil with a more saturated oil, like coconut oil, if you're concerned about omega 6.
You could substitute some of the olive oil with a more saturated oil, like coconut oil, if you're concerned about omega 6.
Re: Omega ratio
Thanks for the tip, I could replace some olive oil with the eventual spoon of coconut oil, if my energy levels are too hard to control.
I had occasional troubles with very soft defecation, I thought that it could be because my balance was on the wrong side. So if I have solid defecation every day for a while it must have been the omega3 imbalance. For now it's going pretty good, I'll keep you updated
I had occasional troubles with very soft defecation, I thought that it could be because my balance was on the wrong side. So if I have solid defecation every day for a while it must have been the omega3 imbalance. For now it's going pretty good, I'll keep you updated
Re: Omega ratio
there was a recent part of our evolution where raw animals were a big part of our diet; animal organs such as livers, eyes, brains, were more sought after than the meat, which was often discarded as useless.
when comparing the nutrient and antinutrient profile of fish meat / animal meat and fish organs and animal organs there is not much difference, they are both good sources of the same things, as long as they are both of high quality.
high quality means the animal grew up in healthy environment (such as the ocean rather than a fish farm, or the pasture rather than a cage), it means it had its natural food and its natural food had its natural food all the way back to sunlight (so it doesn't mean feeding cows grains, but rather letting it graze on pastures in its natural climate getting plenty of sunlight on the grass, on good, not abused soil, and so on). general things like that make the end product (what we consume) nutrient rich, which has a good balance of vit a and d rather than way too much vit a and no vit d, for example.
when comparing the nutrient and antinutrient profile of fish meat / animal meat and fish organs and animal organs there is not much difference, they are both good sources of the same things, as long as they are both of high quality.
high quality means the animal grew up in healthy environment (such as the ocean rather than a fish farm, or the pasture rather than a cage), it means it had its natural food and its natural food had its natural food all the way back to sunlight (so it doesn't mean feeding cows grains, but rather letting it graze on pastures in its natural climate getting plenty of sunlight on the grass, on good, not abused soil, and so on). general things like that make the end product (what we consume) nutrient rich, which has a good balance of vit a and d rather than way too much vit a and no vit d, for example.
Re: Omega ratio
Why not?overkees wrote:I still don't think we ate alot of fish, so it might be really healthy but it isn't in our evolutionary diet, in my opinion.
Spearfishing in a stream does not require any sophisticated stuff.
Many ancient remainders of human activity were found on the banks of rivers/streams.
Its kind of speculative, dont you think?we must make a list of all the ideal evolutionary foods we could eat and in what proportions we should eat them.
Personally, i dont think we should worry about this ratio too much.
Just eat various raw animal foods, and you will be fine.
You just need to eat eggs that can eat their natural diet.I recommend everybody to eat omega 3 eggs, as their ratio is 1:1-2 instead of 1:15 when you do not eat alot of fish. They also probably have more nutrients because the chickens can eat their natural diet.
No 'enrichment' required at all.
Re: Omega ratio
Liver does not really qualify then...panacea wrote:which has a good balance of vit a and d rather than way too much vit a and no vit d, for example.
Re: Omega ratio
why not?
there are all kinds of liver
as far as I knew liver was a very good source of vit a and d, (such as skate liver or cod liver)
there are all kinds of liver
as far as I knew liver was a very good source of vit a and d, (such as skate liver or cod liver)
Re: Omega ratio
I think flaxseed enriching their foods is totally harmless. I mean, we drink olive oil, right? And we strain the fibers? Oh and have I mentioned that we threw away the bags of the yolks and the egg whites? So we are also enriching ourselves?
No, chicken need a lot of seeds. They're birds! They can perfectly convert the ALA to DHA. They naturally get a lot of oil from all the seeds they eat.
Because yolks are a big part of my diet, I'm going for the omega 3 eggs. But I'm convinced about the fish oil. I will quit the oil and eat more raw mackerel.
No, chicken need a lot of seeds. They're birds! They can perfectly convert the ALA to DHA. They naturally get a lot of oil from all the seeds they eat.
Because yolks are a big part of my diet, I'm going for the omega 3 eggs. But I'm convinced about the fish oil. I will quit the oil and eat more raw mackerel.
Re: Omega ratio
Too high levels of vitamin A, particularly in comparison to vitamin D.panacea wrote:why not?
True, but they are all very high in vitamin A.there are all kinds of liver
I dont have any data about skate liver or cod liver, but:as far as I knew liver was a very good source of vit a and d
Vitamin A / 100 g.
calf's liver 21900 mcg
ox liver 15300 mcg
sheep's liver 9500 mcg
tuna 450 mcg
mackerel 100 mcg
oyster 93 mcg
salmon 41 mcg
herring 38 mcg
Vitamin D / 100 g.
herring 26.7 mcg
salmon 16.3 mcg
oyster 8 mcg
tuna 4.5 mcg
mackerel 4 mcg
sheep's liver 2 mcg
ox liver 1.7 mcg
calf's liver 0.3 mcg
Re: Omega ratio
Why not?overkees wrote:I still don't think we ate alot of fish
For me its not about the principle, but about the ratios.overkees wrote:I think flaxseed enriching their foods is totally harmless. I mean, we drink olive oil, right? And we strain the fibers? Oh and have I mentioned that we threw away the bags of the yolks and the egg whites? So we are also enriching ourselves?
Im just analyzing the numbers.
Its not just about LNA and DHA, but the ratio of all omega 3 fats.No, chicken need a lot of seeds. They're birds! They can perfectly convert the ALA to DHA. They naturally get a lot of oil from all the seeds they eat.
The amount of LNA in flaxseed oil is extremely high: about 54% !!
Chickens naturally eat all kinds of insects and worms, and grass seeds.
Oily seeds not so much, and seeds in general do not nearly contain that much LNA.
rapeseed oil: 9% LNA
wheat germ oil: 8% LNA
poppy seed oil: 1% LNA
maize oil: 1% LNA
sesame seed oil: 1% LNA
olive oil: 1% LNA
sunflower oil: 0.5% LNA
pumpkin seed oil: 0.5% LNA
grapeseed oil: 0.5% LNA
safflower oil: 0.5% LNA
The ratio of EPA vs ALA and DHA in omega 3 enriched eggs is lower.Enriched
ALA: 50 EPA: 2, DHA: 50-150
Normal:
ALA: 16 EPA: 2, DHA: 20
(from 1:8 and 1:10 down to 1:25, even down to 1:75)
I need to look into that; whether that is 'harmless', or not.
The human capacity to convert ALA into EPA and DHA is limited and varies within individuals.
Fish like tuna, mackerel and salmon contain more EPA than ALA.
Re: Omega ratio
Yes, in rivers you can basically catch fish with bare hands (that's what we were doing as kids). Takes time but eventually you catch some. And I can imagine the rivers were a lot more abundant with fish than now.RRM wrote: Why not?
Spearfishing in a stream does not require any sophisticated stuff.
Many ancient remainders of human activity were found on the banks of rivers/streams.
Re: Omega 3:6 ratio
Well, catching fish is pretty hard to do when we didn't have the brains for it that resulted from eating more omega3s and animal foods. It takes years for bears to learn how to catch fish. So, I find it more convincing that we ate alot of insects and eggs and bone marrow and this made the difference. Later adding more animal foods. But I got no proof whatsoever. It's just a feeling. I could be totally wrong. Monkeys use tools, so we could have eaten fish all along and that's what made us so smart. Living at the shore is a good survival strategy, so yeah it's certainly an option that I can't rule out.
In the bugs (the link I gave in my first post) the ratio is EPA:DHA:ALA ~ 4 : 5 : 4.5. Seems to me that this is our most important source of omega 3s.
I did some more research, and it turns out that it's known that it's much easier to convert EPA to DHA. Also alot of medicinal professionals suggest sometimes a EPA:DHA ratio of up to 7:1 for healing depressions. And too high levels of DHA seem to sometimes even cause a depression. Also, EPA is a very strong anti inflammatory agent. But since the normal condition of humans is certainly not that we are depressed, I think that it's not a smart move to have this high amount of EPA in our diets.
So, what are the ratios in fish? EPA:DHA
Mackerel: 1:1.5
Salmon: 1:3
In this http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16841858 article it is stated that the avg of seafood is 1:2.15.
What we also must consider is that EPA also must be converted to DPA.
I think that if we decrease our omega 6 consumption in general, to our natural omega 6 consumption, that the ratios of the omega 3s don't matter all that much. It's very hard to eat too little omega 6 and to exceed the ratio of 1:1 in favour of the omega 3 side if we don't take supplements.
My total EPA:DHA is (with eating 100 g mackerel every day): 900:2000. I think this is a perfectly fine ratio. It's an even better ratio compared to eating 100g salmon every day with 6 normal yolks: 300:1100. The DPA is almost the same.
So, if we're talking about ideal ratios, it must be EPA:DHA ranging from 1:1 to 1:2. The other way around suggested for deppressed people is really unlikely. But maybe when consuming so much omega 6 as in the normal diets, it might be better to have the ratio more to the EPA side. I don't know... maybe because of the omega 6 fatty acids that seem to be inflammatory.
And I think, as we eat a lot of fruits naturally that the ALA content in yolks is no problem.
Conclusion:
Mackerel is the bomb! Plus I'm not convinced of quitting omega 3 egg yolks.
In the bugs (the link I gave in my first post) the ratio is EPA:DHA:ALA ~ 4 : 5 : 4.5. Seems to me that this is our most important source of omega 3s.
I did some more research, and it turns out that it's known that it's much easier to convert EPA to DHA. Also alot of medicinal professionals suggest sometimes a EPA:DHA ratio of up to 7:1 for healing depressions. And too high levels of DHA seem to sometimes even cause a depression. Also, EPA is a very strong anti inflammatory agent. But since the normal condition of humans is certainly not that we are depressed, I think that it's not a smart move to have this high amount of EPA in our diets.
So, what are the ratios in fish? EPA:DHA
Mackerel: 1:1.5
Salmon: 1:3
In this http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16841858 article it is stated that the avg of seafood is 1:2.15.
What we also must consider is that EPA also must be converted to DPA.
I think that if we decrease our omega 6 consumption in general, to our natural omega 6 consumption, that the ratios of the omega 3s don't matter all that much. It's very hard to eat too little omega 6 and to exceed the ratio of 1:1 in favour of the omega 3 side if we don't take supplements.
My total EPA:DHA is (with eating 100 g mackerel every day): 900:2000. I think this is a perfectly fine ratio. It's an even better ratio compared to eating 100g salmon every day with 6 normal yolks: 300:1100. The DPA is almost the same.
So, if we're talking about ideal ratios, it must be EPA:DHA ranging from 1:1 to 1:2. The other way around suggested for deppressed people is really unlikely. But maybe when consuming so much omega 6 as in the normal diets, it might be better to have the ratio more to the EPA side. I don't know... maybe because of the omega 6 fatty acids that seem to be inflammatory.
And I think, as we eat a lot of fruits naturally that the ALA content in yolks is no problem.
Conclusion:
Mackerel is the bomb! Plus I'm not convinced of quitting omega 3 egg yolks.
Re: Omega 3:6 ratio
Many birds are very good at fishing.overkees wrote:Well, catching fish is pretty hard to do when we didn't have the brains for it that resulted from eating more omega3s and animal foods.
Learning how to do it is not really an obstacle for humans, as humans lived in gruops and taught stuff to each other.It takes years for bears to learn how to catch fish.
Because of the ratio?In the bugs (the link I gave in my first post) the ratio is EPA:DHA:ALA ~ 4 : 5 : 4.5. Seems to me that this is our most important source of omega 3s.
That doesnt make sense to me.
Can you explain?
Yes, but here you need mackerel to compensate for the omega 3 yolks....overkees wrote:My total EPA:DHA is (with eating 100 g mackerel every day): 900:2000. I think this is a perfectly fine ratio.RRM wrote:The ratio of EPA vs ALA and DHA in omega 3 enriched eggs is lower.overkees wrote:I think flaxseed enriching their foods is totally harmless.
(from 1:8 and 1:10 down to 1:25, even down to 1:75)
I dont see any benefit in the lower EPA ratio in omega yolks.
Sure, but i dont see any point in lowering the EPA ratio (by using omega yolks instead of normal yolks).the ALA content in yolks is no problem.